How do they find the shark responsible for an attack?

[seekinglondonlife]

Just read the sad story about the British man killed in a shark attack in Australia.
According to the BBC News, lifeguards have been jetskiing and aircraft travelling 25 km to find the shark, which will then be culled. How on earth do they find the responsible one? According to the site, they usually do within a few days. And why do they kill it? Would it be more likely to kill again?

Good question I’m interested in knowing this too

I would like to know the answer to this as well. They do the same with crocodiles or alligators that kill people as well.

Don’t know but I’m guessing there won’t be too many sharks of that size in the immediate area?? Maybe sharks are monitored and tracked anyway. Poor guy.

It seems a backwards thing to do.

I hope that they don't find it.

Poor guy yes but poor shark too. It's doing its own thing in its territory. It didn't invite us in. Yes its terrible for the guy but its a risk you take in the water and a very low one at that.

We're such an arrogant species. We slaughter billions of animals, including millions of sharks, yet one shark kills one human and they want it dead and no doubt even more sharks will die the in process as measures are ramped up.

I feel really uncomfortable with it being killed too, which is very hypocritical as I'm a meat eater. It just seems a shame as it is an endangered species and the sea is its territory after all.

I think it's because it now has a taste for human blood

Shark won't be killed. It will be relocated far out to sea away from the shore. It was apparently a 5m great white shark so it's going to be pretty distinctive being such a big shark.

Sometimes they're killed to retrieve the remains of the person.

I know they can test stomach contents for dna But that doesn't explain how they catch it when it's still alive.

@HumansAgain

I hope that they don't find it.

Poor guy yes but poor shark too. It's doing its own thing in its territory. It didn't invite us in. Yes its terrible for the guy but its a risk you take in the water and a very low one at that.

We're such an arrogant species. We slaughter billions of animals, including millions of sharks, yet one shark kills one human and they want it dead and no doubt even more sharks will die the in process as measures are ramped up.

This. Such a tragedy.

I was wondering this. I read today that Sydney has one of the oldest shark detection programmes and part of that includes tagging the most dangerous kind of sharks. So if this particular one was tagged and it emits a signal that may tell them exactly which shark it was. Plus it seems there were a fair few sightings eg a nearby fisherman.

Is it because once a shark has done this they realise and remember how easy humans are to attack? So it’s not because it killed a person but more to prevent it now targeting people because they are intelligent and will obviously go for the easiest prey ?

I don’t agree with killing it but I do wonder if it is just to try and avoid the above

@frogswimming

I know they can test stomach contents for dna But that doesn't explain how they catch it when it's still alive.

I think they kill it and then examine the stomach contents. So bad luck if you're an innocent but similar size shark in the area.

Apparently culling the shark is unusual these days, according to the BBC news story.

@BananaBender I just read that the big ones are killed and the smaller ones are relocated. Probably not that easy nor safe to relocate a 3m+ great white.
I've just been reading about measures that are taken on Australian beaches to deter sharks, but so many other species get killed in the process. As a pp said, we are such a selfish species

@3cats4poniesandababy

Apparently culling the shark is unusual these days, according to the BBC news story.

I hope so and it’s relocated instead

Why would you need to obtain DNA samples? If they've retrieved several body parts already, surely that is enough confirmation that the person has died?

They'd look for sharks in that area of that size, ish (or with any distinguishing marks that people noticed), kill it and look at its stomach contents. Some sharks are tagged anyway so can be tracked - there is a bull shark tagging programme, for example.

There are currently calls in Sydney for a shark cull, so kill all GW sharks found in a certain area. Madness as a) they're a threatened species, b) new sharks just move into the area, and c) sharks don't get a 'taste for blood', like in jaws.

There are counter calls to stop people fishing off the beach and rocks with live bait or chum, who may be attracting sharks.

It's a tragedy for the man and his family but he was in the shark's natural environment.

Humans are so arrogant as a species.

I read it won't be killed just sort of guided away

I don't understand, why would they kill an animal who was in its own environment and acting through instinct? Sorry about the man being killed but surely he knew the risks? The sea belongs to marine life, not human life!!

In terms of the reason for culling it's not a "taste for blood" as such. Sharks are very visual hunters and when they've had a successful kill they'll form a search image of the thing they ate and be much more likely to attack something that looks like it again, because it was a successful use of their energy. It's an evolutionary adaptation, they hunt from down where it's dark looking up at the surface so they're looking for silhouettes. If they didn't have this ability they'd attack every bit of floating debris and soon run out of energy to hunt.

It's the reason bodyboarders are often targets, they look like seals or turtles etc from below so they match the shark's known search image and it targets them.

So yes, because this person was sadly eaten as opposed to just receiving a tentative exploratory bite wound, this specific shark is very likely to attack swimmers again in future.

@Iwanttenofthose

In terms of the reason for culling it's not a "taste for blood" as such. Sharks are very visual hunters and when they've had a successful kill they'll form a search image of the thing they ate and be much more likely to attack something that looks like it again, because it was a successful use of their energy. It's an evolutionary adaptation, they hunt from down where it's dark looking up at the surface so they're looking for silhouettes. If they didn't have this ability they'd attack every bit of floating debris and soon run out of energy to hunt.

It's the reason bodyboarders are often targets, they look like seals or turtles etc from below so they match the shark's known search image and it targets them.

So yes, because this person was sadly eaten as opposed to just receiving a tentative exploratory bite wound, this specific shark is very likely to attack swimmers again in future.

That’s so interesting, I never knew any of that.

I hope they don't find it. Why should it die for doing what comes naturally to it?

@Iwanttenofthose

In terms of the reason for culling it's not a "taste for blood" as such. Sharks are very visual hunters and when they've had a successful kill they'll form a search image of the thing they ate and be much more likely to attack something that looks like it again, because it was a successful use of their energy. It's an evolutionary adaptation, they hunt from down where it's dark looking up at the surface so they're looking for silhouettes. If they didn't have this ability they'd attack every bit of floating debris and soon run out of energy to hunt.

It's the reason bodyboarders are often targets, they look like seals or turtles etc from below so they match the shark's known search image and it targets them.

So yes, because this person was sadly eaten as opposed to just receiving a tentative exploratory bite wound, this specific shark is very likely to attack swimmers again in future.

Wow I never knew that. It’s so interesting and makes a lot of sense. I do still feel bad that the shark may be killed for doing something that comes naturally to it